The full Second Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reconsider the verdict ordering President Donald Trump to pay more than $83 million to writer E. Jean Carroll for defamationin a case that has set a precedent regarding the limits of public discourse and compatible responsibility.
The decision reaffirms that the justice system will not back down in a case that has mixed presidential power with accusations of sexual abuse and persistent public attacks.
The decision means that the ruling previously issued by a three-judge panel of the same court remains unchangedclosing the door, at least in this instance, to an expanded review by all active judges.
According to court documents, the vote was not unanimous: five judges opposed reopening the case, while three supported the idea of reconsidering it.
Court upholds previous decision
In the resolution, Judge Denny Chin defended the court’s actions, pointing out that the case had already been evaluated on multiple occasions and that there were insufficient grounds for additional review.. “The court acted correctly in refusing to meet en banc to reconsider this issue,” he wrote.
The ruling reaffirms the compensation of $83.3 million dollars imposed on Trump after a trial held in January 2024, where a jury concluded that the president defamed Carroll by publicly discrediting his accusations of sexual abuse. That verdict was added to a previous one, in 2023, in which the Republican politician was declared responsible for sexual abuse and defamation, with an additional compensation of $5 million.
The case originated in 2019, when Carroll published in her memoirs that Trump sexually assaulted her in the 1990s in a changing room at the Bergdorf Goodman store in Manhattan.. Trump denied the accusations, claimed not to know her, and publicly stated that she “wasn’t his type,” comments that led to the defamation lawsuit.
2nd Circuit has denied rehearing en banc within the E Jean Carroll I case—the one filed 1st however tried second. It be the $83 M verdict for defamation within the center of Trump’s 1st term. (Had presidential & “Westfall” immunity concerns.) pic.twitter.com/6bvOY2Y7rB
— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) April 29, 2026
Trump defense announces new resources
After learning of the decision, a spokesperson for the president’s compatible team announced that they will continue to appeal, possibly before the Supreme Court of the United States, where there is already a pending request related to the first verdict.
The defense insists that the process is part of what they describe as a “political instrumentalization” of the judicial system.. Additionally, some dissenting judges agreed that Trump should have had the opportunity to argue presidential immunity, considering that his statements could have been issued within the scope of his official duties.
In an explicit opinion, judges Steven J. Menashi, Michael H. Park and Debra Ann Livingston maintained that the process presents “a manifest injustice” and described the compensation as excessive.
Impact of the case and reactions
For her part, Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, said that her client hopes that the litigation will conclude soon after years of compatible battle. “He is looking forward to this case coming to an end so he can get justice,” he said.
During the judicial process, the court considered it proven that Trump made multiple statements over the years in which he accused Carroll of lying for political and economic purposes, which led, according to the judges, to harassment, threats and damage to his reputation.
The ruling also highlights that the president continued to publicly attack Carroll even after the court verdicts, which influenced the magnitude of the financial award imposed by the jury.
The case represents one of the most relevant civil litigation that Trump is currently facing and comes in parallel with other judicial processes that have put his conduct under scrutiny before and after assuming the presidency.
With this decision, the Second Circuit reinforces the criterion that public statements by political figures, even in confrontational contexts, can lead to significant legal consequences. if they are considered to cross the line of defamation. Meanwhile, the final outcome could depend on whether the Supreme Court plans to intervene in the coming months.
Keep reading:
- Documentary about E. Jean Carroll, who sued Trump, will premiere in the US in May.
- Trump asks the Supreme Court to overturn his sentence for abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll
- Court confirms $83 million fine for Trump for defaming E. Jean Caroll
